When North Korea launched long-range missiles this summer, and again on Friday, demonstrating its ability to strike Guam and perhaps the United States mainland, it powered the weapons with a rare, potent rocket fuel that American intelligence agencies believe initially came from China and Russia.
The United States government is scrambling to determine whether those two countries are still providing the ingredients for the highly volatile fuel and, if so, whether North Korea's supply can be interrupted, either through sanctions or sabotage. Among those who study the issue, there is a growing belief that the United States should focus on the fuel, either to halt it, if possible, or to take advantage of its volatile properties to slow the North's program.
But it may well be too late. Intelligence officials believe that the North's program has advanced to the point where it is no longer as reliant on outside suppliers, and that it may itself be making the potent fuel, known as UDMH. Despite a long record of intelligence warnings that the North was acquiring both forceful missile engines and the fuel to power them, there is no evidence that Washington has ever moved with urgency to cut off Pyongyang's access to the rare propellant.
Classified memos from both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations laid out, with what turned out to be prescient clarity, how the North's pursuit of the highly potent fuel would enable it to develop missiles that could strike almost anywhere in the continental United States.
Pop Science earlier has a more detailed look at how their missile might work:
How North Korea's Theoretical ICBM Would Work
Toxic Propellant Hazards ~ 1966 NASA KSC; Hydrazine Rocket Fuel & Nitrogen Tetroxide Oxidizer
It's really nasty stuff...
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @01:56AM (6 children)
Innovation? By Norks?
<head asplode />
</comments>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @02:15AM (4 children)
WTF are you talking about? UDMH is not an "innovation" -- it was investigated and used as a rocket fuel by both USA and USSR back in the 50s, and is still used today (e.g. Proton-M).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deadstick on Wednesday September 20 2017, @02:38AM
...and "rare" is an odd adjective to use for something that doesn't exist in nature: there's not much of it because we don't make much. Other forms of hydrazine are used more commonly, like in the F-16 emergency power unit.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday September 20 2017, @08:39AM (2 children)
I was going to make the same comment. It's "the obsolete, toxic, dangerous rocket fuel", it was abandoned decades ago when better alternatives were found. The fact that DPRK has to resort to using this sixty-year-old toxic stuff shows just how bad things are there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @11:23AM
Sure it's toxic and dangerous, but neither obsolete, nor abandoned decades ago. Like I said, it's still used today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @10:42PM
Nearly all of the little tiny thrusters use it. You'll find it on SpaceX stuff (called the "SuperDraco" I think) and it was used on the Space Shuttle. We use it on planetary probes. We use it for stationkeeping.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @02:41AM
I guess they stopped using Estes C6-7 engines then. I would've went with the Aerotech hybrid N2O/AP myself
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @02:08AM (5 children)
AC submitter here -- I was short on time and barely sent in the two links. Thanks for taking the time to write a good summary.
Hydrazine (various flavors, I guess) has been around as a rocket fuel for a long time (in USA/Russia/China??) Very difficult to make and not blow up the production facility. The NY Times article suggests that either Russia or China have been selling it to N Korea for their previous missile launches.
At one point (1960s?) I seem to remember that some drag racers got their hands on some and tried adding a little to their fuel. Pretty sure the results were engine meltdowns, it's way crazier than the nitro-methane that fuel drag cars burn now.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday September 20 2017, @02:41AM (2 children)
"Crazier than nitromethane" is a frightening thought. Between reading Ignition! a few times and frequenting Dr. Lowe's "Things I Won't Work With" sub-blog I've gained a healthy respect for anything with more nitrogens than nature intended.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:00AM
It's so awesome though! Ever been to a top-fuel (nitromethane fueled) race? I've been to a few, and they had both jet and rocket cars too. The jets and rockets were just stupid compared to the nitro cars. Everyone should experience it- you just can't describe it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:14AM
Nitromethane isn't so bad. It's often used in model airplanes and cars. Of course, it's a single nitrogen. Tetranitromethane on the other hand...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @02:46AM
https://euclidsbridge.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/drag-racing-pioneers-or-suicidal-nutjobs/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.dragzine.com/news/flashback-friday-the-story-of-the-leathal-fuel-called-hydrazine/ [dragzine.com]
(Score: 1) by justinb_76 on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:35PM
if the grounds a rumblin and the flames are green, they must be burnin' that hydrazine...
(or something like that, read that on some old car enthusiast site way back)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 20 2017, @02:44AM (4 children)
The spread of weapons technology, especially rocketry, has a well established pattern.
The US or Russia makes some advance. The new tech is stolen, or sold through various shadow corporations to China. China uses it for some years, then sells it to North Korea. NK then keeps it "secret" for a few years, then sells it on to mideastern interests. Again and again, this has happened. At some point, it seems that Russia cut out China as a middleman, and started dealing with NK directly.
Recently, it was discovered that some North Koreans had set up their own private corporation inside of China, from which they ordered some Western technology, then "sold" that same tech to their own Fearless Leader. Almost everything is funneled through China.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/confidential-u-n-report-details-213809097.html [yahoo.com]
Meanwhile, no one credibly suggests that Koreans - either North or South - are stupid. The NK's are learning, and they can build their own stuff as well. Their homebuilt stuff may or may not be a couple generations behind, but they can build their own. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/north-korea-icbm-study-ukraine-russia/index.html [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:19AM
Can we hope this is at least the B-story background for an upcoming Bond film?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:26AM (1 child)
The interesting thing is that currently we rely on what is basically 'security through obscurity' when it comes to things like nukes and other weaponry. It should be apparent with even the briefest glance through history that that's not going to work in the longterm. Neither is trying to make sure only "acceptable" parties have weapons. As enter into an era where we're likely to see autonomous systems capable of replicating increasingly complicated work, physical systems will be able to be digitally transferred. This poses all sort of interesting issues. For one physical devices will soon face the same copyright issues as digital 'things' (music, software, etc) do today. But it also means that things like weaponry and other sort of destructive technology will be leaked into the hands of everybody.
Not sure what the solution is here. But sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that this will never happen is probably not the wisest strategy.
(Score: 3, Funny) by coolgopher on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:23AM
Someone is going to claim the solution is DRM...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:04AM
Or the plans/blueprints/recipes are found on the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @03:10AM (3 children)
Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hyrazine
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @03:19AM (1 child)
Does it snort well?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:40AM
Yes! Relieves nasal congestion better than Dristan!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:18AM
*unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine
(Score: 3, Informative) by pTamok on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:53AM (4 children)
I didn't think unsymmetrical was an English word, and if it had not been for the Google Ngram viewer [google.com], I would probably have gone off on a rant about how people can't speak or write proper English these days.
However, I'm not so old that I can't check my thinking, and while I would have written asymmetric rather than unsymmetrical, it appears that unsymmetrical was the more popular option in the past, with asymmetric becoming more popular in about 1947.
Google Ngram viewer, English corpus - unsymmetrical versus asymmetric [google.com]
Ok. So, instead, I'll warm up my rant about Americanisms polluting British English...
Google Ngram viewer, British English corpus - unsymmetrical versus asymmetric [google.com]
Google Ngram viewer, American English corpus- unsymmetrical versus asymmetric [google.com]
...that'll be a 'no' then.
So while asymmetric is more used now, it wasn't in the past, and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine is old enough to have been named when unsymmetrical was popular enough to be a reasonable term to use.
Sometimes the Internet is wonderful - it has saved you from a rant from a boring old fart. Rejoice. \o/
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @08:36AM (1 child)
I take it you are ahappy with the aintentional amodernness of the term.
(sidenote: the unnaturalness of typing the above is an almost physical sensation).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pTamok on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:07AM
No, I'm not unhappy. It's nice when I can demonstrate to myself I'm wrong, and thereby learn something. Contemplating the possibility of being wrong is a luxury many people do not afford themselves.
You may find reading these untypical texts provides some solace for your unnatural sensation:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/%7Ebeatrice/humor/how-i-met-my-wife.html [upenn.edu]
https://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/brev-is-the-soul-of-wit/ [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @11:41AM (1 child)
Perhaps un... was a choice of words to help in tracing information leaks?
Or a trademark, or marketing exercise to make it seem more special than it was.
Or just a King's English challenged Stem person.
I think I'm with the OF on this one. A new word just makes more entrophy.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @12:54PM
Different old fart here. At first I thought entrophy was a simple typo for entropy...based on ancient memories from an intro thermo course. Turns out I was wrong, first usage on ngram is c.1880. But I think "entropy" is a better fit in your sentence:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=entrophy&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Centrophy%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bentrophy%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEntrophy%3B%2Cc0 [google.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ci5mk/can_someone_explain_entrophy_not_entropy/ [reddit.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:02AM (4 children)
Sabotage?
As if we needed any more evidence that North Korea is absolutely right about being under attack and needing weapons to defend themselves.
By now, it should be clear to anyone that when politicians say that NK should not be allowed to have nukes, what they really mean that they should not be able to defend themselves. You know, just like Iraq after years and years of UN weapons inspectors making sure that they didn't have anything to defend themselves with.
THAT is what Kim is worried about, and why he thinks he needs nukes. And yet they keep showing evidence that he is right to be worried.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @11:48AM (3 children)
So if Kim's motives are about self preservation, then the international community needs to set up a situation where his survival depends on NK joining the community of nations.
The question is, how do you do that?
Offer a great retirement plan.
Offer a stick and a carrot instead of a stick and a stick.
Call out his helpers.
Get between his people and him so he has to look outside for help.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday September 20 2017, @12:46PM (2 children)
Euphemism for American Empire. Note they seem pretty stable hanging out with China on one side and SK on the other. They don't really need to ally with anyone.
My (south, afaik) Korean coworker anecdotally described the NK as being like stereotypical hillbillies. Don't F them over or otherwise force them, and they're quite content to chill out in their mountains and not bother anybody. The only way they're gonna fight "the international community" or American Empire or whatever is if the Chinese force them, which turns it into how to keep China happy.
Last time the NK tried a civil war, they almost pushed the south off the peninsula until the Americans landed in force at which time we pushed them all the way back to the Chinese border, again in mere weeks. Then the Chinese got pissed about buffer state issues and did four years of human wave / zerg rush attacks against us, until everyone got tired of it. Not really all that much has changed since then.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @01:06PM (1 child)
Do "stereotypical hillbillies" build tiny submarines to infiltrate their neighbors? When I visited S Korea (late 1980s) they were catching these little subs fairly often, each one was dropping off a spy or two. Since they are all Korean, it's relatively easy to blend in, I suppose the South also infiltrates the North (but did not hear about that).
Our hosts (Hyundai car company) took us to a beautiful beach near the southern end of the peninsula, but just above high tide was a barbed wire fence and there were raised sentry posts at regular intervals--the whole coastline was guarded.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday September 20 2017, @10:12PM
Yes, they do [history.com], and have for a long time. Those zany stereotypical hillbillies. Link has picture of actual stereotypical-hillbilly-built tiny submarine from 1864.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday September 20 2017, @10:07PM (1 child)
So, in TFS, UDMH is...
Community member driverless (4770) contributes knowledge, calling it
Okay. You have my curiosity. Following TFS' own What is UDMH [wikipedia.org] link, I learn that
Unstable psychotic toxic fuel? Well,
So, to sum up, this rare unstable highly volatile nasty dangerously toxic molecular death is often used in rocket fuels, stable even over long periods of time, appealing for use, flammable but not explosive, toxic but not remarkably so (if one avoids adding it to foodstuffs).
Isn't this sort of like smoke but no fire, alarm but no emergency?
I mean, I am not going to argue that North Korea doesn't have a slightly nutty flavor about them, but that does not automatically make their stable, appealing fuel suddenly an unstable desperation play in explosive tempermental volatile evilsauce. So far as I can determine, while rhetoric sometimes seeks such an outcome, reality doesn't work that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 21 2017, @04:32AM
> toxic but not remarkably so (if one avoids adding it to foodstuffs).
watch the NASA training video linked in the story,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDRKeM9kKxs [youtube.com]
Highly toxic, lung damage starts at half a ppm.